Looking at the BPE site reveals that it is just another organization using the title and badge of human rights to add an air of legitimacy to the real intent behind their work: demonization and marginalization of Europe’s Muslims.

Thanks to one of our German readers, Morakot, we were able to see for ourselves the true nature of this group that Spencer attempts to trump up. It is a group whose aims are undifferentiated from those of neo-Fascists like Geert Wilders and the BNP.

In “Der Verein” (The Association) section of their website they claim that they are not “anti-Muslim” but the facts speak otherwise. Similar in substance to neo-Fascists and Euro supremacist groups, they take up the mantle of proclaiming themselves to be the vanguard and champions of “European Culture.” They define this as being “exclusively committed to the preservation of the Christian-Jewish tradition of their European culture” and opposed to the so called “creeping Islamization” of Europe, which is nothing less than the perpetuation of the debunked Eurabiaand Muslim Demographics conspiracy theories.

Their solutions to the so called problem of “creeping Islamization” are elucidated in a document they released titled De-Islamization program which states amongst its main points,

– Organizations of islam critics as well as of people who left islam shall be funded by the state and have an adaquate say in the media.

Lets think about this for a second. They want the state to reward critics of Islam (who defines “critics of Islam?” Would anti-Muslim Geert Wilders of “tax-the-hijab-fame” be considered an acceptable “critic?”) and people who leave Islam with funding, essentially lobbying the government to take an official position in opposition to Islam. Does this not cross the boundary of separation of Church and State, and the fundamental tenets of secularism? It seems the “Christian-Jewish values” that this organization wants to protect bears more of a resemblance to a theocratic “Holy Roman Empire” rather than a pluralistic Democracy.

-All islamic organizations following a political instead of a religious agenda and/or on behalf of a foreign governement shall be disbanded.

Who will decide if an “Islamic organization is following a political agenda?” This is really a concealed attempt to disband all Muslim organizations. Everything the BPE represents indicates that they agree with a Geert Wilder-esque concept that ’Islam is not a 1500 year old religion at all but rather a political movement,’ so no matter what you do as an organization you will be labeled a political organization.

It also highlights the double standards they advocate: on the one hand you have the Christian Democrats (CDU) led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, which is “Christian-based, applying the principles of Christian Democracy and emphasizes the ‘Christian understanding of humans and their responsibility toward God.’” CDU is a political party which heads the German government, imagine the firestorm that would be created if Muslims even attempted to create a party which “emphasizes the ‘Muslim understanding of humans and their responsibility toward God.”

-Persons supporting djihad or installment of sharia in Germany shall undergo a de-islamization training or must suffer severe sanctions.

Who would define what “supporting djihad” or installing “sharia” consists of and what would be the scope of these definitions? As we well know Robert Spencer and the advocates of the conspiracy theory of Eurabia believe that many law abiding Muslims, by the very fact of their increasing presence and visibility in the West, are pushing a “stealth djihad.” For example there are people in Europe who think wearing a headscarf, or installation of footbaths is an act of “djihad,” would such acts entail implementation of the “severe sanctions” being proposed, and of what would these “severe sanctions” consist?

– Quran-schools are to be forbidden.

They should just go a step further with their fascistic ideas and follow their brethren in Europe who have called for the Quran to be banned. If in some fairyland-Democracy-minus-religious-freedom envisioned by these jokers this is okay, then why are: Bible schools, Torah schools, Bhagavad Gita schools not similarly forbidden?

– Islamic head cloths are to be banned in kindergardens, schools, campusses, workplaces, public buildings and events.

This was another predictable point, the obsession with hijab for Islamophobes is unending. Not only have laws been proposed such as the above (and passed in places like France) infringing on a woman’s right to wear what they want and follow their conscious, not only have proposals been made to tax it, but it also has led to violence such as murder and assault.

– Parents who submit their children to forced marriage or deny them proper education have to be deprived of child custody.

Everyone can agree that forced marriages are terrible and have to be fought, and many Muslims are leading the fight against the practice. It is curious though that this issue is being painted as springing from Islam, which condemns the practice. It is also a phenomenon that is not peculiar to Muslims but rather affects women and men from Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian and Gypsy backgrounds and cultures.

As far as the vague idea of “deny them proper education,” what does that mean? Knowing what we know from the above proposals, would a family that taught their children the Quran be considered as “denying a proper education?” Would they then advocate the child be ripped from their family for studying the Quran?

– Mosques are to be built only with approval of the neighbourhood. Minarettes and the call of the muezzin are to be forbidden. Sermons are to be held solely in German.

It is usually a good policy to have the involvement of a neighborhood when any religious structure is built, as it will become a major landmark bringing in more traffic and people into the area. It goes without saying that religious groups should prioritize good relations with their neighbors, something all religions believe in because they all teach the golden rule.

However, the wording in this proposal is very confrontational and seeks to legislatively limit the construction of the traditional mosque with minarets; it is an attempt to make the Muslim presence in essence invisible. What is the difference between such proposals and what goes on in some of the theocratic Muslim nations that Islamophobes regularly complain about when facts seem to indicate that they are two peas in the same pod?

This time Spencer and his friends in the BPE were in Stuttgart, Germany where we are told by Spencer they held a “well advertised” event that was to have “Middle Eastern Christian musicians,” and other anti-Muslim “activists,” all gathering together to “fight the jihad.”

So what happened? Did thousands of newly “enlightened” and “awakened” Europeans show up to signal their solidarity with the BPE and Spencer and “fight” Islam and Muslims in the guise of a new front against the phantom threat of “jihad?”

No. In stark contrast to the much propagated idea pushed by xenophobic Islamophobes that “the West is waking up to the ‘threat’ of Islam,” it seems more people are waking up to the threat posed by anti-Freedom activists and Euro-supremacists such as the BPE and Spencer.

Thousands of anti-fascist protesters showed up at the event and stood down the hatred that was being promoted on Spencer’s side.

Spencer was clearly shaken up as his side only attracted a few dozen aging fans. He likened his experience to “looking into the pit of hell.”

For this, Germany has received Spencer’s diagnosis of being a country on the “brink.” The brink of what you may ask? Well, full blown radical-Islamization-jihad-creeping-sharia-evil-darkness-take-over of course.

Spencer spells this out in an interesting lecture he gives a few days after the failed BPE event in Stuttgart. The lecture is about “Islamization” and how he now doesn’t believe “Muhammed” actually existed (a regurgitation of age old Orientalist arguments such as those of Klimovich):

Robert Spencer: The process of Islamization is of course very advanced. And we are now entering into a different stage of it, and we saw this two days ago. In the Quran there are three stages of development, as many of you no doubt know, in the doctrine of Jihad. And the first is when Muhammad first became a prophet and preached in Mecca that he was the new prophet of the One true God. Most people paid no attention, he got a small band of followers together. The Quraish, they were the pagan Arabs of Mecca and the Quraish leaders did not like what he was saying at all because it challenged them, they had the Kaba, it was there at that time too before Islam and it was full of idols, 360 pagan idols, and the Arabs from all over Arabia would go there to venerate their gods. So the Quraish had a shrine, you know if you’ve ever been to Rome or Jerusalem or Fatima or Lords you know its a big tourist trap and so was Mecca and the Ka’ba, and so they didn’t like this…but in any case at that time he taught tolerance and peace and whenever you see the Imams on TV talking about tolerance and peace they are quoting from a time when Muhammad was weak and his enemies were strong and he had no military or political power. So he was not preaching tolerance and peace for non-Muslims, he was preaching tolerance and peace for them, he was asking to be tolerated.

Man from the crowd: same as what happens now…

Robert Spencer: Precisely, that’s the stage we are in now in Europe and America…So in other words when there is a small group of Muslims without military or political power then they preach tolerance and peace, just like Muhammad did when he was a small group in Mecca, when they gain more political and military power then they get more aggressive. I believe now we are moving from the first stage to the second stage in Europe and in America to a lesser degree. And ultimately of necessity there will come the third stage as well and this will be open warfare. Its a very sad situation but if we stand it down now then the game is already over. (emphasis added)

In the bolded portion above Spencer makes no distinction between Islam and Muslims, nor does he speak about “radical Islam” or “radical Muslims.” He speaks clearly, dropping all caveats and says Muslims are the problem and can’t be trusted, “when there is a small group of Muslims without military or political power then they preach tolerance and peace…when they gain more political and military power then they get more aggressive.”

Spencer tells us that “it isn’t too late for Europe.” Islam and Muslims can still be stopped with the help of anti-Muslims like the BPE, René Stadtkewitz and his new Freedom Party, etc.